An order mandating tenants to deposit rent arrears under Section 12 of the Act is not appealable under Section 18.

O R D E R

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

When this revision petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition. In the light of the said objection, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on either side as to the maintainability of the revision petition.

2. Petitioners are the tenants in a proceedings for eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act). In the eviction petition, the respondent preferred an application under Section 12 of the Act seeking directions to the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent. It was alleged in the said application that a sum of Rs.5,77,720/- is due towards arrears of rent from the petitioners for the period from March 2019 to February 2022. On the said application, the Rent Control Court directed the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per month from March 2019 onwards. The petitioners challenged the said order in appeal under Section 18 of the Act. The Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. This revision petition under Section 20 of the Act is instituted challenging the said decision of the Appellate Authority.

3. There is no dispute between the parties to the fact that when the matter was taken up by the Rent Control Court after the dismissal of the appeal, having found that the order directing the petitioners to pay the rent has not been complied with by them, the Rent Control Court stopped the proceedings and passed an order of eviction under Section 12 (3) of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, an order passed under of the Act directing the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent is not appealable, and the appeal preferred by the petitioners against such an order should have, therefore, been dismissed by the Appellate Authority as not maintainable. It was the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the correctness of such an order can be questioned only in an appeal against the consequential order under (3) of the Act, if at all such an order is passed after complying with the provisions contained in . It was the argument of the learned counsel that inasmuch as the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order directing them to pay the arrears of rent is not appealable, a revision under Section 20 of the Act cannot be preferred against the decision in such an appeal.

4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court has held inSidharthan v. Hassankutty Haji, 1994 (2) KLT 419 that when the Rent Control Court directs the tenant to pay arrears of rent under Section 12 of the Act, it is upto the tenant to either pay the arrears or to show cause why an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession should not be passed, and Section 18 of the Act does not permit the tenant to challenge such an order in an appeal under of the Act. It is thus evident that the appeal in which the order impugned in this revision petition has been passed, is not maintainable. If the appeal is not maintainable, the petitioners have to challenge the order impugned in the appeal in a properly instituted proceedings. The petitioners do not have a case that they are entitled to challenge the order impugned in the appeal straight away in a revision petition filed under Section 20 of the Act. If that be so, we have no option except to hold that this revision petition is not maintainable. The objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition is, therefore, upheld and the revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.